Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:52:31PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>On 17-05-16 08:23 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:07:25PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Jiri,
>> >
>> > I am sorry i am tied up elsewhere but will respond in chunks.
>> >
>> > On 17-05-15 04:38 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > static inline void qdisc_cb_private_validate(const struct sk_buff *skb,
>> > > int sz)
>> > > {
>> > > struct qdisc_skb_cb *qcb;
>> >
>> >
>> > > +int tcf_block_get(struct tcf_block **p_block,
>> > > + struct tcf_proto __rcu **p_filter_chain)
>> > > +{
>> > > + struct tcf_block *block = kzalloc(sizeof(*block), GFP_KERNEL);
>> > > +
>> > > + if (!block)
>> > > + return -ENOMEM;
>> > > + block->p_filter_chain = p_filter_chain;
>> > > + *p_block = block;
>> > > + return 0;
>> > > +}
>> >
>> > tcf_block_get() sounds odd. tcf_block_create()?
>>
>> I used get/put because I plan to allow sharing of block between qdiscs
>> in future. Then there will be a refcount.
>>
>
>Ok, I guess I should read further into the patches..
>
>
>> > > -static struct tcf_proto __rcu **atm_tc_find_tcf(struct Qdisc *sch,
>> > > - unsigned long cl)
>> > > +static struct tcf_block *atm_tc_tcf_block(struct Qdisc *sch, unsigned
>> > > long cl)
>> >
>> > Any reason you removed the verb "find" from all these calls?
>> > eg above: better to have atm_tc_tcf_block_find()?
>>
>> Yeah, I was thinking about it. The thing is, the callback does not do
>> any lookup so "find" is not accurate. Also without "find" this is
>> shorter so I decided for this naming variant.
>>
>
>They do select some chain - at least that was the intent.
>Are you not planning to use this to pick a chain in a block?
No. I just need to use this to get the whole block of chains.
